| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |
| Date: | 2016-04-15 19:01:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20160415190122.w6jd43ifzi5ae22q@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-15 19:59:06 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> For me, the issue is that we need to do something to catch bugs. The
> existing code does not have any test at all to check whether we are doing
> the wrong thing - it just lets the wrong thing happen.
But sending the message, without assigning an xid, *IS* the right thing
to do here? We shouldn't assign an xid, and we need to send the message
out to the standbys.
> Fixing it by forcing a new behaviour might be the right thing to do going
> forwards, but I don't much like the idea of forcing new behaviour in back
> branches. It might fix this bug, but can easily cause others.
What's your alternative? Assigning an xid in the middle of vacuum isn't
ok, breaking vacuum isn't either?
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-04-15 19:18:31 | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-04-15 18:59:06 | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |